7 ms·

Who are we going to give it to? Tribe A who the colonists took it from? What about the Tribe B that had their taken by the Tribe A? Should they be screwed over?

maxwell 3y ago
Without the European conquest, the Wabanakis may have actually been crushed by the expanding Iroquois Confederacy. Hence they, along with other Algonquin nations, joined the Americans in the Revolution, while many Iroquois sided with the British. The Penobscots, one of the member nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy, have never been displaced from Indian Island (since settling there ~11k years ago), and acquired significant additional land holdings since the 1970s.
- ImJamal 3y ago
  >The Penobscots, one of the member nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy, have never been displaced from Indian Island (since settling there ~11k years ago), and acquired significant additional land holdings since the 1970s. How do you know that? If they took land from another tribe 9k years ago do you think we would have a record of it? What if another tribe took the land from them 8k years ago and 7k years ago they took it back? Do you think we can actually determine if that happened?
  - maxwell 3y ago
    Uh, what do you think we can "actually determine" from before recorded history? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_millennium_BC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_millennium_BC I used to live on the next island over (French Island), and your clueless questioning of Penobscot sovereignty is disappointing. Would you also suggest that maybe Natufians should control the Levant?
    - ImJamal 3y ago
      >Uh, what do you think we can "actually determine" from before recorded history? That is my point. You made a claim but have no evidence to prove it. >I used to live on the next island over (French Island), and your clueless questioning of Penobscot sovereignty is disappointing. I don't think you understand what my point even is if you think I am doubting anybody's sovereignty. >Would you also suggest that maybe Natufians should control the Levant? I don't think being the earliest inhabitants of an area gives permanent ownership. My issue is we are told we need to give back land to the previous owners. It just seems ridiculous that we should do that when many of the tribes we took the land from did the exact same thing we did.
      - maxwell 3y ago
        > That is my point. You made a claim but have no evidence to prove it. I'm not claiming anything, it's right there on https://penobscotnation.org https://penobscotnation.org. Reach out to Chief Francis or the council if you have questions on their assertions. > I don't think you understand what my point even is if you think I am doubting anybody's sovereignty. Good to hear, that doesn't really seem to be the case among Mainers. Note that the Penobscot River has legally been a citizen of the Penobscot Nation since 2018. The State of Maine has repeatedly disputed their claims and legally challenged their sovereignty, finally losing their battle to control pollution in the river last year: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/22-year-court-battle-ends-justice-penobscot-river https://www.nrdc.org/stories/22-year-court-battle-ends-justi... > I don't think being the earliest inhabitants of an area gives permanent ownership. Okay, so who should control the Levant then? I understand how one could extrapolate from other geopolitical tensions, but there doesn't seem to be much uncertainty in this case regarding Penobscot claims. Yes they lost most of their wider territory through illegal treaties, but they never lost their "capital" on Indian Island. I'm not aware of any other New World peoples who weren't displaced from their ancestral headquarters by European settlers and have maintained continuity of government since before Columbus set sail. The Penobscots asserted their claim on over half of the land in Maine in the 1970s, and reached a settlement for over $80M in 1980, which they've used to acquire more territory [1]. The only question has been over sovereignty, specifically in terms of environmental rights, with the State of Maine taking on both the tribe and the feds in their failed battle for control over the river. 1. https://generationallandscapesblog.wordpress.com/sugar-island https://generationallandscapesblog.wordpress.com/sugar-islan...
zamalek 3y ago
That is certainly something the tribes should sort out, after getting the land back.
- ImJamal 3y ago
  Which tribe would get the land back?
  - maxwell 3y ago
    In this case, the nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy.
    - ImJamal 3y ago
      Why? They killed various tribes to obtain at least some of their land. If it was wrong for the colonists then we shouldn't reward tribes who did the exact same thing? Taking land from oppressor A just to give it to oppressor B is just dumb.
  - zamalek 3y ago
    The one last in possession - the point of my comment is that it is not the responsibility of colonialists to decide who the land belongs to. The only certainty is who last had it.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ImJamal 3y ago
      If we don't have a responsibility to determine who the land belongs just who last owned it then it seems like the colonists should retain it. The last people to control the land are the colonists after all. Let's look at this from a normal legal situation. You own an item that was stolen by thief A. Thief B then steals it from thief A. Should your item be returned to you or to thief A? Your logic would indicate thief A. Nobody thinks that would be the right solution and yet when it comes to native lands nobody cares. I just want some consistency.
lapetitejort 3y ago
Sounds like a tribal matter, and not something for colonists to answer.
- ImJamal 3y ago
  It matters to us since if we are going to give land back we have to know who to give it to.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
With rule of law, you would give it to whichever tribe which the government made a binding agreement with, thereby honoring your word and contractual obligations. The scope of government is to uphold the agreements it makes, not unravel the interactions of other parties going back to the dawn of humanity.
- ImJamal 3y ago
  That could easily violate the rule of law though. Knowingly trading stolen property is often times a crime. If we know the land was stolen by the tribe we are giving it to we aren't really following the rule of law.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    In that hypothetical, Why are we changing the mind about if it is stolen or not? We didn't consider it stolen when we first made the agreement.
  - yawpitch 3y ago
    Considering the "we" in this case only have possession of the (allegedly and / or only hypothetically stolen) property because "we" engaged in genocide, it's kind of rich for "us" to worry about violating the rule of law.
yawpitch 3y ago
This isn't the strong question you seem to think it is. Assuming we're the colonists who stole from A then our ethical responsibility is to return the stolen property to A. If A in turn had stolen the property from B then it's A's ethical responsibility to return the stolen property to B. It is ABSOLUTELY not the colonists' responsibility (or right) to keep screwing over both A and B by waffling over the chain of custody when they're the ones whose hands hold the stolen property.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  Land can’t be stolen, only conquered when sovereigns are involved. Whichever sovereign has physical possession (rule and defense) of the land has a stronger claim to it than the other who simply says it’s theirs but are unable to rule it. You aren’t a sovereign if you don’t rule within your claimed borders.
  - yawpitch 3y ago
    Conquering land is, definitionally, taking possession of a real asset by force from another who had prior possession of that same asset… in other words it’s identical in meaning to theft, hence conquered land is stolen land, unless that land had no prior occupants. QED. This is, of course, notwithstanding the fact that wars of conquest are illegal in our modern system of international law precisely because they represent an act intended to steal another nation’s sovereign territory… you seem to thing such wars become legal if the invaded party doesn’t successfully prevent the invasion from starting at all. Yes, the de facto situation is that successfully prosecuting a genocide means successfully stealing land, as happened in what became the USA, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the land was very definitely (in the case of the USA both de facto and de jure) stolen.
    - nemo44x 3y ago
      Why does a sovereign have unconditional ownership in perpetuity of a real asset? Nobody owns land by virtue of being on it or saying they own it. Another sovereign making a claim to the land is valid and puts ownership in dispute. The 2 parties have multiple ways to resolve the dispute with war being a mechanism if others paths are unsuccessful. Yes, wars of conquest are "illegal" today but that's not a real thing - it's just a declaration by some group of humans who wish it to be. They certainly weren't "illegal" in previous times so any land acquired then is clearly not "stolen".

maxwell 3y ago

Without the European conquest, the Wabanakis may have actually been crushed by the expanding Iroquois Confederacy. Hence they, along with other Algonquin nations, joined the Americans in the Revolution, while many Iroquois sided with the British. The Penobscots, one of the member nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy, have never been displaced from Indian Island (since settling there ~11k years ago), and acquired significant additional land holdings since the 1970s.

ImJamal 3y ago
>The Penobscots, one of the member nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy, have never been displaced from Indian Island (since settling there ~11k years ago), and acquired significant additional land holdings since the 1970s. How do you know that? If they took land from another tribe 9k years ago do you think we would have a record of it? What if another tribe took the land from them 8k years ago and 7k years ago they took it back? Do you think we can actually determine if that happened?
- maxwell 3y ago
  Uh, what do you think we can "actually determine" from before recorded history? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_millennium_BC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_millennium_BC I used to live on the next island over (French Island), and your clueless questioning of Penobscot sovereignty is disappointing. Would you also suggest that maybe Natufians should control the Levant?
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    >Uh, what do you think we can "actually determine" from before recorded history? That is my point. You made a claim but have no evidence to prove it. >I used to live on the next island over (French Island), and your clueless questioning of Penobscot sovereignty is disappointing. I don't think you understand what my point even is if you think I am doubting anybody's sovereignty. >Would you also suggest that maybe Natufians should control the Levant? I don't think being the earliest inhabitants of an area gives permanent ownership. My issue is we are told we need to give back land to the previous owners. It just seems ridiculous that we should do that when many of the tribes we took the land from did the exact same thing we did.
    - maxwell 3y ago
      > That is my point. You made a claim but have no evidence to prove it. I'm not claiming anything, it's right there on https://penobscotnation.org https://penobscotnation.org. Reach out to Chief Francis or the council if you have questions on their assertions. > I don't think you understand what my point even is if you think I am doubting anybody's sovereignty. Good to hear, that doesn't really seem to be the case among Mainers. Note that the Penobscot River has legally been a citizen of the Penobscot Nation since 2018. The State of Maine has repeatedly disputed their claims and legally challenged their sovereignty, finally losing their battle to control pollution in the river last year: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/22-year-court-battle-ends-justice-penobscot-river https://www.nrdc.org/stories/22-year-court-battle-ends-justi... > I don't think being the earliest inhabitants of an area gives permanent ownership. Okay, so who should control the Levant then? I understand how one could extrapolate from other geopolitical tensions, but there doesn't seem to be much uncertainty in this case regarding Penobscot claims. Yes they lost most of their wider territory through illegal treaties, but they never lost their "capital" on Indian Island. I'm not aware of any other New World peoples who weren't displaced from their ancestral headquarters by European settlers and have maintained continuity of government since before Columbus set sail. The Penobscots asserted their claim on over half of the land in Maine in the 1970s, and reached a settlement for over $80M in 1980, which they've used to acquire more territory [1]. The only question has been over sovereignty, specifically in terms of environmental rights, with the State of Maine taking on both the tribe and the feds in their failed battle for control over the river. 1. https://generationallandscapesblog.wordpress.com/sugar-island https://generationallandscapesblog.wordpress.com/sugar-islan...

zamalek 3y ago

That is certainly something the tribes should sort out, after getting the land back.

ImJamal 3y ago
Which tribe would get the land back?
- maxwell 3y ago
  In this case, the nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy.
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    Why? They killed various tribes to obtain at least some of their land. If it was wrong for the colonists then we shouldn't reward tribes who did the exact same thing? Taking land from oppressor A just to give it to oppressor B is just dumb.
- zamalek 3y ago
  The one last in possession - the point of my comment is that it is not the responsibility of colonialists to decide who the land belongs to. The only certainty is who last had it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    If we don't have a responsibility to determine who the land belongs just who last owned it then it seems like the colonists should retain it. The last people to control the land are the colonists after all. Let's look at this from a normal legal situation. You own an item that was stolen by thief A. Thief B then steals it from thief A. Should your item be returned to you or to thief A? Your logic would indicate thief A. Nobody thinks that would be the right solution and yet when it comes to native lands nobody cares. I just want some consistency.

lapetitejort 3y ago

Sounds like a tribal matter, and not something for colonists to answer.

ImJamal 3y ago
It matters to us since if we are going to give land back we have to know who to give it to.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

With rule of law, you would give it to whichever tribe which the government made a binding agreement with, thereby honoring your word and contractual obligations. The scope of government is to uphold the agreements it makes, not unravel the interactions of other parties going back to the dawn of humanity.

ImJamal 3y ago
That could easily violate the rule of law though. Knowingly trading stolen property is often times a crime. If we know the land was stolen by the tribe we are giving it to we aren't really following the rule of law.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  In that hypothetical, Why are we changing the mind about if it is stolen or not? We didn't consider it stolen when we first made the agreement.
- yawpitch 3y ago
  Considering the "we" in this case only have possession of the (allegedly and / or only hypothetically stolen) property because "we" engaged in genocide, it's kind of rich for "us" to worry about violating the rule of law.

yawpitch 3y ago

This isn't the strong question you seem to think it is. Assuming we're the colonists who stole from A then our ethical responsibility is to return the stolen property to A. If A in turn had stolen the property from B then it's A's ethical responsibility to return the stolen property to B. It is ABSOLUTELY not the colonists' responsibility (or right) to keep screwing over both A and B by waffling over the chain of custody when they're the ones whose hands hold the stolen property.

nemo44x 3y ago
Land can’t be stolen, only conquered when sovereigns are involved. Whichever sovereign has physical possession (rule and defense) of the land has a stronger claim to it than the other who simply says it’s theirs but are unable to rule it. You aren’t a sovereign if you don’t rule within your claimed borders.
- yawpitch 3y ago
  Conquering land is, definitionally, taking possession of a real asset by force from another who had prior possession of that same asset… in other words it’s identical in meaning to theft, hence conquered land is stolen land, unless that land had no prior occupants. QED. This is, of course, notwithstanding the fact that wars of conquest are illegal in our modern system of international law precisely because they represent an act intended to steal another nation’s sovereign territory… you seem to thing such wars become legal if the invaded party doesn’t successfully prevent the invasion from starting at all. Yes, the de facto situation is that successfully prosecuting a genocide means successfully stealing land, as happened in what became the USA, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the land was very definitely (in the case of the USA both de facto and de jure) stolen.
  - nemo44x 3y ago
    Why does a sovereign have unconditional ownership in perpetuity of a real asset? Nobody owns land by virtue of being on it or saying they own it. Another sovereign making a claim to the land is valid and puts ownership in dispute. The 2 parties have multiple ways to resolve the dispute with war being a mechanism if others paths are unsuccessful. Yes, wars of conquest are "illegal" today but that's not a real thing - it's just a declaration by some group of humans who wish it to be. They certainly weren't "illegal" in previous times so any land acquired then is clearly not "stolen".